Set Session Cookies

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real side effect: the value is persisted to disk at ~/.config/mcp-is-muni/config.json, and three distinct input encodings are tolerated. It does not say whether cookies are validated on write, what happens on an invalid token, or whether existing values are overwritten, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, accepted formats are a scannable bullet list, and the persistence note closes it out. Every line adds information; nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the accepted-format and persistence details cover the main gaps for a one-parameter credential-setting tool. What is missing is failure behavior and any warning that the input is a sensitive credential, which matters for a tool with no annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter is an undescribed plain string, so the description must compensate — and it does by enumerating three accepted formats (raw Cookie header with __Host-issession/__Host-iscreds, browser-extension JSON export, single token). It adds clear meaning beyond type: string, though it does not say which format is preferred or whether the raw header must include both cookies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource (configure session cookies) plus the reason (IS MU authentication), which clearly separates it from the sibling read tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with check_auth_status, which is the closest related tool, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Naming the authentication purpose implies the usage context, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g. before other tools, after auth failure) or that check_auth_status is the way to verify success. The agent must infer the workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.